2016 New gTLD Year in Review (Infographic)

This post provides an overview of The 2016 New gTLD Year in Review infographic, reflecting on some of the intriguing highlights of the gTLD industry.

The data analyzed within the infographic is based on the following:

– New Top Level Domains (TLDs) contained in the data set reflect open TLDs and exclude single registrants such as brands

– For greater insight, TLDs have been separated into four quartiles or ‘tiers’ with tier 1 being the top 25% and tier 4 being the bottom 25%

– Initial registration upswings have been eliminated with TLDs in the data set to be in General Availability for at least 60 days

– Top ten based on projected yearly revenues based on daily registration volumes

– Registry revenues do not include premium name sales as dependable revenues are not available

– Operational losses are based on TLD revenues with a conservative $150k in expenses

– Revenues are based on the average retail price over four registrars (101Domain, eNom, GoDaddy and United Domains) in December 2016

– If significantly low registration pricing (less than $5) was employed on an extended or repetitive basis, the lowest price was used. This is a change from prior comparisons where the TLD was removed from the data set.

* * *

Top Level Domain Statistics and Business Implications 2016 Overview

  • The dataset analyzed contains 475 TLDs that were in general availability for at least 60 days (an increase of 63 over 2015)
  • Average number of registrations per day is 66
  • Top 25 TLDs account for 40% revenues and 12% of registration volumes (significant change from 2015 with half of revenues accounting for half of the registration volume)
  • Less than 4% of TLDs will exceed ICANN’s minimum yearly fee
  • Largest group of TLDs are in the $20 – $25 retail price range followed by the $25 – $30
  • Average revenue of all gTLDs is $252k
  • Average retail prices vary ($34.14 to $206.70) within each tier differ yet the median price variance is less significant ($28.49 to $33.74)
  • All tiers have a ‘very weak’ correlation between price and volume
  • Based on today’s data, 66% of TLDs are projected to operate at a loss for the next year based on conservative, yearly expenses of $150k; with over 400 TLDs belonging to portfolio companies, the percentage decreases

2016 Insights from gTLD Statistics and Business Implications by Quartile

Tier 1: Trailblazers – Leading TLDs with a consistent gap over the other three tiers based on higher prices and consistent volume

  • Average retail price of $207 (increase from $91 in 2015) and a median of $32.99 (decrease from $35 in 2015 but lower than tier 3 of $33.74)
  • 5 out of 10 of the highest average retail priced TLDs are in tier 1 (.auto, .car, .cars, .security, .protection)
  • 70% of TLDs in tier 1 in 2015 remain in tier 1 in 2016; However, 51% had a reduction in their retail price on average $12.47 with a median of $3.72 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 48 but with a mean volume decline of 15
  • Projected yearly volume remains relatively unchanged with a small decrease of 2.2% over 2015
  • 34% and 42% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 1
  • Average TLD length is up to 5.45 characters in length
  • Deeply discounted TLDs in tier 1 include .loan, .online, .site, .gdn, .bid, .tech
  • Tier 1 TLDs include: .vip, .shop, .mom, .bank, .design, .nyc, .games, .city, .lawyer
  • More precise pricing needs to be tracked to provide comparable yearly revenue projections and analysis

Tier 2: Path Finders – Finding their Way

  • Average retail price jumped from $51 in 2015 to $75 in 2016; However, the median price had a small increase moving from $29.99 to $30.49
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 2 in 2015 remain in tier 2 in 2016; However, 31% had a reduction in their retail price on average $1.82 with a median decrease of $8.09 resulting in an average registration volume decrease of 1 but with a median decrease of 8
  • 32% and 64% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 2
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.05 characters in length
  • Average volume in 2016 increased just over 4.1% to 8,728 from 8,387 in 2015
  • Tier 2 TLDs include:.gift, .racing, .video, .taxi, ,bar, .earth are in the second tier of gTLDs

Tier 3: Campers – Niche groups of TLDs

  • Average retail price in tier 3 is $101.27 and a median price of $33.74
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 3 in 2015 remain in tier 3 in 2016; However, 26% had an increase in their retail price on average $3.67 with a median reduction of $4.07 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 2 but with a median decrease of 3
  • 21% and 71% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 3
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.38 characters in length
  • Tier 3 TLDs include: .estate, .holiday, .codes, .cards, .soccer, .accountants, .toys

Tier 4: Hikers – Determining a pathway up!

  • Lowest pricing amongst all tiers with an average retail price of $34.14 (up from $31.62 in 2015) and a median price of $28.49 (down from $28.74 in 2015)
  • 80% of TLDs in tier 4 in 2015 remain in tier 4 in 2016; However, 29% had an increase in their retail price on average $4.92 with a median reduction of $2.35 resulting in an average and median registration volume decrease of 2
  • Projected volume has grown due to TLDs who have offered significant discounts but with total revenues remaining in tier 4
  • 20% and 75% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 4
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.29 characters in length
  • Tier 4 TLDs include: .joburg, .cologne, .florist, .actor, .supply, .gripe, .sarl

gTLD Business Implications for 2017

  • As the number of new TLD delegations tapers off, 2017 will be interesting as the industry shifts from launches to operations will play a bigger role. As such, TLDs rising to tier 1 at the end of the year will likely be diverse from prior years
  • Average registration volumes have increased to 23,900 an average increase of 5,650 over 2015
  • Number of TLDs offering deeply discounted registrations has also increased over 2015
  • Average retail prices have increased by $45 over 2015 with almost no change in the median price $-0.038
  • Top 5% of TLDs account for 40% of all projected revenues
  • In 77% of all cases, the singular TLDs ranks higher than the plural TLD i.e. .loan/.loans, .game/.games, .accountant/.accountants
  • Volume of IDNs in tier 1 have increased to 37% (up from 26% in 2015), tier 2 and tier 3 each have 15% (tier 2 down from 22% in 2015 and tier 3 up 11%). Tier 4 remains unchanged with 48%
  • Premium name revenues have not been taken into account which can have significant impacts on the financial performance of a TLD

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any questions, insight or items to consider for future analysis.

By Christa Taylor, Christa Taylor is the CEO of DotTBA. More blog posts from Christa Taylor can also be read here.

Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains

Intel Haswell GPUs Now Support OpenGL 4.2 for Ubuntu Gamers in Padoka/Oibaf PPAs Exclusive

Ubuntu gamers relying upon their Intel Haswell graphics card series to play various games that support these GPUs will be happy to learn that the open-source Intel drivers now support OpenGL 4.2.

Until today, the Intel i965 graphics drivers offered by the well-known Padoka and Oibaf PPAs for Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus) and Ubuntu 16.10 (Yakkety Yak) operating systems exposed only OpenGL 4.0 for Intel Haswell GPUs, thus support for some demanding games just wasn’t there.

Last week, we told you that the Mesa team decided to change the versioning scheme of the devel branch to Mesa 17.0.0 from 13.1.0, a change that, apparently, will happen at the beginning of every year, and that developer Juan A. Suarez Romero announced new patches that implement support for Intel Haswell 64-bit vertex attributes.

Since then, we’ve been monitoring the Padoka and Oibaf PPAs, and only today, January 14, 2017, are these patches available in both of them for the Intel i965 open-source graphics drivers, along with the latest Mesa 17.0.0-devel series, of course. Take a look at the screenshot below to see OpenGL 4.2 enabled after updating the drivers.

Here’s how to update/install Padoka or Oibaf PPAs in Ubuntu

If you’re an avid Ubuntu gamer using Ubuntu 16.04 LTS or Ubuntu 16.10, you need to have the Padoka or Oibaf PPAs installed for your system to sport updated and optimized open graphics drivers. Below, you’ll find easy instructions on how to install these Personal Package Archives; just copy/paste the commands in the Terminal app.

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:oibaf/graphics-drivers -y
sudo apt update sudo apt dist-upgrade

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:paulo-miguel-dias/mesa -y
sudo apt update sudo apt dist-upgrade

Our favorite is the Padoka PPA because we believe it’s currently a bit more advanced than the Oibaf one, though that can change in the future. Please carefully read the description of each PPA before installing, and keep in mind that you can’t have them both installed.

Blockchain ‘Bullies’: Truth, Trolls and Bitcoin Uncensored’s Big Short

Bitcoin Uncensored, Chris Derose

“I’ve been sending death threats since I was 8.”

I know a lead-in like that piques interest and so does Chris DeRose, one half of the abrasive and influential podcast ‘Bitcoin Uncensored’. It’s why he said it. That, and to make his co-host and partner in alleged crime, Joshua Unseth, laugh. “Sometimes the most honest thing you can do is tell a lie,” Unseth adds.

That statement should cloud everything you’re about to read.

First, a brief introduction. For those who aren’t familiar, Bitcoin Uncensored is a loosely defined podcast that’s part constant Soundcloud experimentation and part social media barrage. While maybe nothing on its own, ‘BU’ has coalesced into a (mostly) cohesive (and controversial) flavor of bitcoin intellectualism – one that is at once a rejection of the technology’s earlier Libertarian values and a supposed embrace of its more scientific merits.

That’s not to say DeRose and Unseth think differently than the bitcoin maximalists of 2013, it’s just that they’ve developed a new way to espouse the message.

Their claim to fame is that they tout this in a rather tasteless and increasingly offensive and visible way. (The duo was ranked number nine in our year’s-end, “most influential” reader poll).

To many, though, the vote shone a brighter light on their more unsavory actions. They’ve been called misogynists, racists, anti-Semites and homophobes by the most well-known faces in the industry. (Many of whom refused to go on record about the subject).

Before we continue, we’ll want to bear in mind this juxtaposition.

To understand DeRose and Unseth, one must also understand bitcoin evangelists, a group that for years now has either been getting made fun of or ignored by most everyone that’s not a ‘believer’. Traditional financial institutions, large enterprises, venture capitalists – most have bowed out for a tangential industry, ‘blockchain’.

And it’s this buzzword that has emerged as the central focal point of the BU universe.

The problem, according to DeRose and Unseth, is that none of the bitcoin haters seem to know what a ‘blockchain’ is. That, and because it’s being used as a buzzword to secure funding rounds at the expense of the innovators who created it. (And they’re not alone in this claim.)

To some, DeRose and Unseth have become something of a mascot for this crusade. And to those who are opposed, they’ve become another name on their Twitter block list.

‘Bullying and harassment’?

In the middle of this tug-of-war are the critics who allege that DeRose and Unseth instigate nothing more than bullying and harassment (and that acknowledging them at all amounts to “letting them win”).

And there’s plenty of evidence to back this up. This article by blog Bitcoinist highlights some of the more colorful and unfriendly words they’ve used for notable investor-backed projects, including Zcash and thought leaders like Andreas Antonopoulos.

In interview, DeRose didn’t see to have a firm stance on whether or not his actions constitute ‘trolling’. This is despite admitting to making harassing phone calls to people’s family members and creating (or encouraging) lewd gifs and memes that lampoon industry figures.

Indeed, DeRose seems unable to see the human cost of these actions, preferring to emphasize his seeming belief that any engagement in the industry amounts to an entrance ticket into a kind of prolonged intellectual warfare.

“I don’t know what trolling is anymore,” DeRose told CoinDesk. “Is any peer review trolling now? Is anything that is meaningful now considered trolling?”

In his mind, this is what allows him to say, criticize someone’s appearance in a sexualized way, or attend an industry conference in disguise and antagonize its organizers.

“What I’ve worked hard for is to have a culture where people are evaluated by their ideas and not as people,” he adds.

In some ways, this is historically how the bitcoin and blockchain space has interacted with outsiders (see the development community’s sprawling mailing list and Twitter arguments, as evidence). Conflict definitely garners attention.

DeRose and Unseth have even acknowledged the accusations about their behavior on their show, though when they do it’s often dismissive.

In response to the topic of subjective morality on a recent show, DeRose quipped “I don’t think there’s anything worse than that.” The conversation quickly routs through discussion of the bible, sex crimes and how confrontation is sometimes the only way to make people face thought paradoxes they may not have previously considered.

And as some of their favorite public targets have struggled – banks leaving the R3CEV private blockchain consortium, scammers running away with the money raised by initial coin offerings and The DAO hack and subsequent ethereum hardfork – the two have earned a kind of niche celebrity in the industry for forcing the conversation.

Even their critics are increasingly acknowledging a difficult truth – they may be partly right.

‘Toxic and flawed’

Jae Kwon, founder and CEO of the open-source blockchain platform Tendermint, has been in the line of fire of DeRose and Unseth before, but he’s more level-headed about the antagonism.

Despite being the butt of some of their jokes, he said he shares some of the chagrin that their sprawling podcasts and social media firepower have helped give voice to.

“I’m also frustrated by some of the things coming out of this industry under the umbrella of blockchain,” Kwon said. “The core of what they’re saying has a lot of truth to it.”

He credits the rise of Unseth and DeRose to the anonymity afforded by the Internet itself, one that he said has created “subculture where trolling is promoted as the method by which one arrives at the truth”.

And in the bitcoin space it’s only secured by the mythos surrounding the cryptocurrency’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, plus most supporter’s belief that technology can usurp social problems.

If you have good technologically sound ideas, then it doesn’t matter who you are as a person, right?

But sometimes it does matter, because there are more effective ways of changing the right people’s minds than via condescension and humiliation.

“The approach they take – bullying and trolling – and their criteria, any proof-of-stake blockchain or fundraiser is a scam, are toxic and flawed,” he said.

Kwon’s Tendermint co-founder, Ethan Buchman, agrees. “I suspect much of their effectiveness is lost due to the tactics,” Buchman said.

The ‘Perianne incident’

To understand where this sentiment comes from, however, one has to go back to the most influential ‘Bitcoin Uncensored’ episode, featuring Perianne Boring, founder and president of the non-profit Chamber of Digital Commerce.

Today, the narrative has been reduced to something like this – DeRose and Unseth coaxed Boring into appearing on the show to talk about blockchain. There, she, in the midst of forceful questioning, conceded that it was basically like the SWIFT secure financial messaging service, a comment the pair immediately and harshly criticized.

Their point was essentially this: if blockchain is just like SWIFT, what would be the point of luring banks into spending vast amounts of time and money stripping their architecture?

For many though, it wasn’t what was said, but how it was carried out (as well as subsequent discussion that found them emphasizing her physical appearance).

On the audio, you can even hear how DeRose and Unseth know full well that they’re prepared to rip apart her ideas.

“She didn’t learn anything from it because she was immediately put on the defensive. It was great for their ratings, but if they actually want her [and others] to learn something or have a positive impact, they need another approach,” Buchman said.

Bitcoin’s right wing

Sure, you could say that standing on a soapbox and patronizing people isn’t always effective – but then again, the latest US election would just about prove you wrong.

On a larger, sociological level, DeRose and Unseth have simply borrowed from President-Elect Donald Trump’s playbook. Stoke animosity, attack political correctness and the crowd goes wild. This can also be seen broadly in the many pro-bitcoin Twitter accounts that routinely retweet Trump rhetoric, unbecoming memes and other incendiary online content.

Unseth’s former Twitter description, for instance, claims, “If you support me and @derosetech [Chris], then you also support @realDonaldTrump.”

Part of the script is to willingly give ammunition to the haters. They know that defending themselves against trolls is a lost cause, because well, they play that game.

The duo’s most ardent supports liken them to something like venerated court jesters, there to prove, as one blogger put, that the emperors have no clothes.

“The bottom line is  –  any community that wants to evolve past bad habits and toxic over-optimistic utopian thinking will have to face ridicule and humor. Because it is often only when we speak in jest, that we are truly saying the truth,” Plutus.it’s Filip Martinka wrote.

Others, like bitcoin developer Paul Storzc, use even more vaunted historical terms:

“Not wanting to be misunderstood, the BU hosts aggressively reject the premise that ‘they must be understood’. They are only interested in the truth; and, in the spirit of Socrates and Sir Karl Popper, they deliberately stack the deck, so that it will be as *difficult* as possible for them to make their case.”

The argument goes like this: So, what if Unseth (who’s not light-skinned) says he doesn’t like people of color, hasn’t his belief that bitcoin is the only blockchain with a circular economy promoted interest in how this might be successfully replicated?

And who cares if DeRose brags about his love of escorts? His position that bitcoin is supported by regulatory arbitrage (the idea that government rules and restrictions give the blockchain its usefulness) is now a de-facto phrase.

But many do care, just like they care about President-Elect Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric.

Because the way people in power act and speak gives others an example, an excuse to act in the same way.

Fame monsters

In interview, Unseth and DeRose display a certain cockiness that can be palpable as well.

Their worst quality, interruption – not only in the interview but at conferences (where they’ll lampoon speakers with question after question) – can be grating. Still, their passive aggressive questions and satirical statements are, many times, on point. And while they cast themselves as imbeciles, heroin addicts and ‘johns’, it’s only to mask real concern.

“The secret truth is that we actually care about bitcoiners,” Derose said.

Finally, a moment of clarity in an interview that all-too-often digresses into a swirl of jokes.

To some, DeRose and Unseth are already sympathetic due to their ‘outsider’ status.

According to Toni Lane Casserly, partner at BitNation, a blockchain-powered “decentralized borderless voluntary nation”, it’s best to view their offensive, in-your-face tendencies as a result of emotional baggage that they carry around.

“They were placed in situations where people didn’t value them, where they were treated like they weren’t good enough or smart enough, and the way they’ve dealt with that is through humor,” she said.

Back to the death threats

In some instances, though, it’s hard to laugh. As the saying goes, there’s a fine line between clever and stupid, and Bitcoin Uncensored certainly likes to cross that line.

At stake in the whole narrative is the question of who is the real bully.

Is it the hordes of bitcoin enthusiasts on Twitter who lampoon and attack their intellectual opponents in anonymity? Or is it the businesses and conferences that all too often lock out this dialogue for a PC or ‘business-friendly’ environment?

In this light, one would be remiss not to mention the central characters of “The Big Short”, another set of outsiders who were attacked and ridiculed, only to be proven right.

A core intellectual question here is, as Unseth and DeRose allude to, which is the greater harm?

“When we started doing this show, it was obvious where the space was going. To us 2+2=4 and then there were a bunch of people in the space claiming that 2+2=15,” Unseth said.

“If [people are] out there advocating people throw their money into toilets and we’re telling people that those are toilets, are we really the assholes?”

It could be argued that both parties are guilty for the poor state of the dialogue.

But then, there’s that line again. After all, I’m still here trying to figure out if the pair sends death threats to blockchain industry entrepreneurs, when DeRose finally admits to the action. Unseth quickly jumps to his defense.

At its core, its this kind of camaraderie that is also key to their appeal.

“It’s interesting, though, because these guys are known scammers,” he says, alluding that I’m trusting the wrong people.

“I don’t mean to disrespect; just trying to validate,” I said.

DeRose quickly strikes back:

“You couldn’t disrespect us if you tried.”

Image via Bitcoin Uncensored

Bitcoin UncensoredBlockchain IndustryDonald Trumptrolling

2016 New gTLD Year in Review (Infographic)

This post provides an overview of The 2016 New gTLD Year in Review infographic, reflecting on some of the intriguing highlights of the gTLD industry.

The data analyzed within the infographic is based on the following:

– New Top Level Domains (TLDs) contained in the data set reflect open TLDs and exclude single registrants such as brands

– For greater insight, TLDs have been separated into four quartiles or ‘tiers’ with tier 1 being the top 25% and tier 4 being the bottom 25%

– Initial registration upswings have been eliminated with TLDs in the data set to be in General Availability for at least 60 days

– Top ten based on projected yearly revenues based on daily registration volumes

– Registry revenues do not include premium name sales as dependable revenues are not available

– Operational losses are based on TLD revenues with a conservative $150k in expenses

– Revenues are based on the average retail price over four registrars (101Domain, eNom, GoDaddy and United Domains) in December 2016

– If significantly low registration pricing (less than $5) was employed on an extended or repetitive basis, the lowest price was used. This is a change from prior comparisons where the TLD was removed from the data set.

* * *

Top Level Domain Statistics and Business Implications 2016 Overview

  • The dataset analyzed contains 475 TLDs that were in general availability for at least 60 days (an increase of 63 over 2015)
  • Average number of registrations per day is 66
  • Top 25 TLDs account for 40% revenues and 12% of registration volumes (significant change from 2015 with half of revenues accounting for half of the registration volume)
  • Less than 4% of TLDs will exceed ICANN’s minimum yearly fee
  • Largest group of TLDs are in the $20 – $25 retail price range followed by the $25 – $30
  • Average revenue of all gTLDs is $252k
  • Average retail prices vary ($34.14 to $206.70) within each tier differ yet the median price variance is less significant ($28.49 to $33.74)
  • All tiers have a ‘very weak’ correlation between price and volume
  • Based on today’s data, 66% of TLDs are projected to operate at a loss for the next year based on conservative, yearly expenses of $150k; with over 400 TLDs belonging to portfolio companies, the percentage decreases

2016 Insights from gTLD Statistics and Business Implications by Quartile

Tier 1: Trailblazers – Leading TLDs with a consistent gap over the other three tiers based on higher prices and consistent volume

  • Average retail price of $207 (increase from $91 in 2015) and a median of $32.99 (decrease from $35 in 2015 but lower than tier 3 of $33.74)
  • 5 out of 10 of the highest average retail priced TLDs are in tier 1 (.auto, .car, .cars, .security, .protection)
  • 70% of TLDs in tier 1 in 2015 remain in tier 1 in 2016; However, 51% had a reduction in their retail price on average $12.47 with a median of $3.72 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 48 but with a mean volume decline of 15
  • Projected yearly volume remains relatively unchanged with a small decrease of 2.2% over 2015
  • 34% and 42% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 1
  • Average TLD length is up to 5.45 characters in length
  • Deeply discounted TLDs in tier 1 include .loan, .online, .site, .gdn, .bid, .tech
  • Tier 1 TLDs include: .vip, .shop, .mom, .bank, .design, .nyc, .games, .city, .lawyer
  • More precise pricing needs to be tracked to provide comparable yearly revenue projections and analysis

Tier 2: Path Finders – Finding their Way

  • Average retail price jumped from $51 in 2015 to $75 in 2016; However, the median price had a small increase moving from $29.99 to $30.49
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 2 in 2015 remain in tier 2 in 2016; However, 31% had a reduction in their retail price on average $1.82 with a median decrease of $8.09 resulting in an average registration volume decrease of 1 but with a median decrease of 8
  • 32% and 64% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 2
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.05 characters in length
  • Average volume in 2016 increased just over 4.1% to 8,728 from 8,387 in 2015
  • Tier 2 TLDs include:.gift, .racing, .video, .taxi, ,bar, .earth are in the second tier of gTLDs

Tier 3: Campers – Niche groups of TLDs

  • Average retail price in tier 3 is $101.27 and a median price of $33.74
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 3 in 2015 remain in tier 3 in 2016; However, 26% had an increase in their retail price on average $3.67 with a median reduction of $4.07 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 2 but with a median decrease of 3
  • 21% and 71% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 3
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.38 characters in length
  • Tier 3 TLDs include: .estate, .holiday, .codes, .cards, .soccer, .accountants, .toys

Tier 4: Hikers – Determining a pathway up!

  • Lowest pricing amongst all tiers with an average retail price of $34.14 (up from $31.62 in 2015) and a median price of $28.49 (down from $28.74 in 2015)
  • 80% of TLDs in tier 4 in 2015 remain in tier 4 in 2016; However, 29% had an increase in their retail price on average $4.92 with a median reduction of $2.35 resulting in an average and median registration volume decrease of 2
  • Projected volume has grown due to TLDs who have offered significant discounts but with total revenues remaining in tier 4
  • 20% and 75% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 4
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.29 characters in length
  • Tier 4 TLDs include: .joburg, .cologne, .florist, .actor, .supply, .gripe, .sarl

gTLD Business Implications for 2017

  • As the number of new TLD delegations tapers off, 2017 will be interesting as the industry shifts from launches to operations will play a bigger role. As such, TLDs rising to tier 1 at the end of the year will likely be diverse from prior years
  • Average registration volumes have increased to 23,900 an average increase of 5,650 over 2015
  • Number of TLDs offering deeply discounted registrations has also increased over 2015
  • Average retail prices have increased by $45 over 2015 with almost no change in the median price $-0.038
  • Top 5% of TLDs account for 40% of all projected revenues
  • In 77% of all cases, the singular TLDs ranks higher than the plural TLD i.e. .loan/.loans, .game/.games, .accountant/.accountants
  • Volume of IDNs in tier 1 have increased to 37% (up from 26% in 2015), tier 2 and tier 3 each have 15% (tier 2 down from 22% in 2015 and tier 3 up 11%). Tier 4 remains unchanged with 48%
  • Premium name revenues have not been taken into account which can have significant impacts on the financial performance of a TLD

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any questions, insight or items to consider for future analysis.

By Christa Taylor, Christa Taylor is the CEO of DotTBA. More blog posts from Christa Taylor can also be read here.

Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains

Forget Ubuntu, now OpenSuse Linux comes to Windows 10

Replace Ubuntu with openSUSE in Bash on Windows 10 and enjoy Linux

If you have been following Techworm, you will know that you can run Ubuntu Apps on Windows using Bash. Microsoft brought the fun and power of Linux to Windows 10 with Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL). This allowed the Windows 10 users to run Bash on Ubuntu on Windows 10 and enjoy Ubuntu Apps without having to install the Ubuntu distro separately.

Now your Linux experience on Windows 10 is bound to get a further refill with OpenSuse Linux distro. OpenSUSE has given the users an option to run openSUSE inside your Windows 10 installation. This way, you can run most openSUSE Apps within Windows 10 without having to install the Operating System separately like Ubuntu with Bash.

Replace Ubuntu with openSUSE in Bash on Windows 10 and enjoy Linux

In a blog post, Sr. Product Manager – SUSE Linux Enterprise at SUSE, Hannes Kühnemund has published a detailed tutorial on how to install a SUSE Linux distribution on Windows 10 PC/laptops. Currently, the users have two options — openSUSE Leap 42.2 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP2.

Replace Ubuntu with openSUSE in Bash on Windows 10 and enjoy Linux

If you are a Linux lover, you can now enjoy OpenSuse along with Ubuntu thanks to Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL).

Coinbase To IRS On Efforts To ID Bitcoin Customers: We Have A Suggestion

Brian Armstrong, co-founder and chief executive officer of Coinbase Inc., stands for a photograph after a Bloomberg West Television interview in San Francisco, California, U.S. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

As the legal maneuverings over the rights of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to gain access to Coinbase customer accounts continue to wind through the courts, Brian Armstrong, Co-Founder, and CEO at Coinbase, has taken to the publishing platform, Medium, to explain his side of the story.

But first, a little background. In November of 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a formal request on behalf of the IRS to serve a “John Doe” summons on all United States Coinbase customers who transferred convertible virtual currency from 2013 to 2015. A “John Doe” summons is an order that does not specifically identify the person but rather identifies a person or ascertainable group or class by their activities.

Days later, the request was granted by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. In response to the ruling, a self-identifying Coinbase customer and managing partner of Berns Weiss, Jeffrey K. Berns, filed a motion to set aside the ruling which would prevent the summons from being issued. He did so as an “intervenor” meaning that he was asking the court to allow him to participate in the legal process even though he had not been specifically named in the original summons. Berns argued, among other things, that the summons was overbroad.

In late December of 2016, the IRS fired back, arguing that since Berns outed himself as a Coinbase user, he’s no longer subject to the summons, meaning that the matter as it affects Berns has been resolved and his motion is now moot. With that, the IRS wanted to proceed with issuing the “John Doe” summons on Coinbase customers. In January of 2017, Berns filed an answer to the IRS response claiming the IRS is attempting to “artificially moot the motion” because it does not want the Court to scrutinize its actions in pursuing a summons he characterizes as “improper.”

Despite the very public back and forth in the courts, Coinbase, the company affected by the subpoena, has been relatively quiet about the subpoena (they did post a statement to their blog in November 2016). This week, however, Armstrong decided to share the company’s side of the story.

Coinbase, Armstrong writes, has “worked to comply with all IRS guidance in our space, beginning with the March 2014 guidance on virtual currency.” Why? Armstrong says that he believes that “Coinbase and the IRS fundamentally want the same thing: for all U.S. users of virtual currency to pay their taxes.” However, he says, “I also feel that the IRS sending us a John Doe summons on all customer accounts is not the best way for us to mutually accomplish this objective.”

It’s not simply about a subpoena, indicates Armstrong, pointing out that Coinbase has previously complied with tailored IRS subpoenas. It’s the scope of the most recent subpoena – asking for detailed transaction information on all United States Coinbase customers over a period of time – that is concerning. Armstrong notes that the language and tenor of the argument in favor of the subpoena also “incorrectly implies that all users of virtual currency are evading taxes.”

2016 New gTLD Year in Review (Infographic)

This post provides an overview of The 2016 New gTLD Year in Review infographic, reflecting on some of the intriguing highlights of the gTLD industry.

The data analyzed within the infographic is based on the following:

– New Top Level Domains (TLDs) contained in the data set reflect open TLDs and exclude single registrants such as brands

– For greater insight, TLDs have been separated into four quartiles or ‘tiers’ with tier 1 being the top 25% and tier 4 being the bottom 25%

– Initial registration upswings have been eliminated with TLDs in the data set to be in General Availability for at least 60 days

– Top ten based on projected yearly revenues based on daily registration volumes

– Registry revenues do not include premium name sales as dependable revenues are not available

– Operational losses are based on TLD revenues with a conservative $150k in expenses

– Revenues are based on the average retail price over four registrars (101Domain, eNom, GoDaddy and United Domains) in December 2016

– If significantly low registration pricing (less than $5) was employed on an extended or repetitive basis, the lowest price was used. This is a change from prior comparisons where the TLD was removed from the data set.

* * *

Top Level Domain Statistics and Business Implications 2016 Overview

  • The dataset analyzed contains 475 TLDs that were in general availability for at least 60 days (an increase of 63 over 2015)
  • Average number of registrations per day is 66
  • Top 25 TLDs account for 40% revenues and 12% of registration volumes (significant change from 2015 with half of revenues accounting for half of the registration volume)
  • Less than 4% of TLDs will exceed ICANN’s minimum yearly fee
  • Largest group of TLDs are in the $20 – $25 retail price range followed by the $25 – $30
  • Average revenue of all gTLDs is $252k
  • Average retail prices vary ($34.14 to $206.70) within each tier differ yet the median price variance is less significant ($28.49 to $33.74)
  • All tiers have a ‘very weak’ correlation between price and volume
  • Based on today’s data, 66% of TLDs are projected to operate at a loss for the next year based on conservative, yearly expenses of $150k; with over 400 TLDs belonging to portfolio companies, the percentage decreases

2016 Insights from gTLD Statistics and Business Implications by Quartile

Tier 1: Trailblazers – Leading TLDs with a consistent gap over the other three tiers based on higher prices and consistent volume

  • Average retail price of $207 (increase from $91 in 2015) and a median of $32.99 (decrease from $35 in 2015 but lower than tier 3 of $33.74)
  • 5 out of 10 of the highest average retail priced TLDs are in tier 1 (.auto, .car, .cars, .security, .protection)
  • 70% of TLDs in tier 1 in 2015 remain in tier 1 in 2016; However, 51% had a reduction in their retail price on average $12.47 with a median of $3.72 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 48 but with a mean volume decline of 15
  • Projected yearly volume remains relatively unchanged with a small decrease of 2.2% over 2015
  • 34% and 42% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 1
  • Average TLD length is up to 5.45 characters in length
  • Deeply discounted TLDs in tier 1 include .loan, .online, .site, .gdn, .bid, .tech
  • Tier 1 TLDs include: .vip, .shop, .mom, .bank, .design, .nyc, .games, .city, .lawyer
  • More precise pricing needs to be tracked to provide comparable yearly revenue projections and analysis

Tier 2: Path Finders – Finding their Way

  • Average retail price jumped from $51 in 2015 to $75 in 2016; However, the median price had a small increase moving from $29.99 to $30.49
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 2 in 2015 remain in tier 2 in 2016; However, 31% had a reduction in their retail price on average $1.82 with a median decrease of $8.09 resulting in an average registration volume decrease of 1 but with a median decrease of 8
  • 32% and 64% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 2
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.05 characters in length
  • Average volume in 2016 increased just over 4.1% to 8,728 from 8,387 in 2015
  • Tier 2 TLDs include:.gift, .racing, .video, .taxi, ,bar, .earth are in the second tier of gTLDs

Tier 3: Campers – Niche groups of TLDs

  • Average retail price in tier 3 is $101.27 and a median price of $33.74
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 3 in 2015 remain in tier 3 in 2016; However, 26% had an increase in their retail price on average $3.67 with a median reduction of $4.07 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 2 but with a median decrease of 3
  • 21% and 71% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 3
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.38 characters in length
  • Tier 3 TLDs include: .estate, .holiday, .codes, .cards, .soccer, .accountants, .toys

Tier 4: Hikers – Determining a pathway up!

  • Lowest pricing amongst all tiers with an average retail price of $34.14 (up from $31.62 in 2015) and a median price of $28.49 (down from $28.74 in 2015)
  • 80% of TLDs in tier 4 in 2015 remain in tier 4 in 2016; However, 29% had an increase in their retail price on average $4.92 with a median reduction of $2.35 resulting in an average and median registration volume decrease of 2
  • Projected volume has grown due to TLDs who have offered significant discounts but with total revenues remaining in tier 4
  • 20% and 75% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 4
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.29 characters in length
  • Tier 4 TLDs include: .joburg, .cologne, .florist, .actor, .supply, .gripe, .sarl

gTLD Business Implications for 2017

  • As the number of new TLD delegations tapers off, 2017 will be interesting as the industry shifts from launches to operations will play a bigger role. As such, TLDs rising to tier 1 at the end of the year will likely be diverse from prior years
  • Average registration volumes have increased to 23,900 an average increase of 5,650 over 2015
  • Number of TLDs offering deeply discounted registrations has also increased over 2015
  • Average retail prices have increased by $45 over 2015 with almost no change in the median price $-0.038
  • Top 5% of TLDs account for 40% of all projected revenues
  • In 77% of all cases, the singular TLDs ranks higher than the plural TLD i.e. .loan/.loans, .game/.games, .accountant/.accountants
  • Volume of IDNs in tier 1 have increased to 37% (up from 26% in 2015), tier 2 and tier 3 each have 15% (tier 2 down from 22% in 2015 and tier 3 up 11%). Tier 4 remains unchanged with 48%
  • Premium name revenues have not been taken into account which can have significant impacts on the financial performance of a TLD

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any questions, insight or items to consider for future analysis.

By Christa Taylor, Christa Taylor is the CEO of DotTBA. More blog posts from Christa Taylor can also be read here.

Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains

Debian vs. Ubuntu Standoff – Comparing the Top Linux Solutions

Debian and Ubuntu both have fan bases that continue to advocate the superiority of their selected solution, but what is really different between them? In this article we will take a look at how both Debian and Ubuntu have been maintaining a steady position since the early days and how even to this day they are regarded as top solutions that provide some of the most trustworthy, efficient services.

Speaking about keeping a steady position, when it comes to the top Linux distributions available, the two have never dropped below position number 6. In fact, last time they were on 6th place was back in 2005 but since then a drastic climb has been recorded. Today, they are both in the top 4 solutions list and have been there for the last four years.

Most desktop setups that rely on Linux have found Ubuntu to be an amazing friend. There is no doubt that Ubuntu was at the base of many systems and at the same time system users experiencing an easy learning curve for PCs. Ubuntu has been around since 2004, and if you were a non-English speaker back then, Ubuntu would have been your best bet. One of the greatest strengths possessed by Ubuntu is the catalogue of free licenses that it offers. Due to how easy it is to use, many have called Ubuntu out as being for beginners. We can accept that assessment without it being derogatory towards Ubuntu. Indeed it is a platform that will make novices feel right at home and as mentioned before the learning curve is very manageable. Let’s see how Ubuntu fares against Debian, which in contrast has been described as a type of “pro” distribution.

Installation

If there’s any doubt that you can install Debian as easily as you would another distribution (let’s say…Ubuntu?), we are clearing it right now. The more recently introduced incarnation of Debian is easy to install and doesn’t require anything over what you might need for an Ubuntu installation. Ubuntu is also very easy to install. While not quite the same, these two at least share a similarity in how they facilitate installation for their consumers.

Desktops

Unity is the proprietary desktop for Ubuntu but before Ubuntu could put together its own desktop in 2010 it used GNOME. Unfortunately this change didn’t result in as much positive feedback as Ubuntu might have hoped for. With Unity not very liked overall, many resort to using alternate desktops.

Debian currently offers an installer that comes with a fruitful offer. With Debian you get multiple desktop environments. There are over a dozen of them to be more precise, and they do a fine job of replacing any alternate desktop solution you were used to until now. Before that however, Debian was using another desktop environment. Can you guess what it was? That’s right, it was GNOME.

Admin and packages

This category is where we can see some important changes starting to take effect. First off, we have Ubuntu which is using sudo root password concealment. This results in the platform giving root clearance to at least one user at all time. All they have to do is enter their own password.

Debian on the other hand comes with a root account philosophy that stretches to envelope a user that is classified as non-privileged. This goes against what many are thriving to achieve while using Debian, therefore the implementation has received a lot of negative feedback. There are still many who defend the decision of taking the non-sudo path however, so there is no final verdict on the matter.

Bitcoin: This is Not the Same as 2013

Chris Burniske is blockchain products lead at ARK Invest, an investment manager focused on disruptive innovation and co-author of the new white paper, “Bitcoin, a New Asset Class“.

In this CoinDesk opinion piece, Burniske pushes back on the mainstream media, arguing that the idea bitcoin is merely repeating the infamy of 2013 is misinformed.

price-bpi

A common but mistaken refrain is building that bitcoin’s behavior of late has been a replica of the infamous late 2013 rise and crash.

Certainly, a similar narrative could be spun: bitcoin breaks $1,000, the People’s Bank of China issues some comments that scare people, bitcoin crashes. But if a few marketplace characteristics are investigated, I think the difference in bitcoin’s maturity between then and now becomes clear.

On 5th December, 2013, a short while after bitcoin broke $1,000, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) sent out a statement claiming bitcoin was “not a currency in the real meaning of the word”. The PBOC went on to restrict financial institutions from getting further involved with the technology.

Last week, on 6th January, 2017, a short while after bitcoin broke $1,000 for the second time in its eight-year life, the PBOC sent out new statements indicating that its representatives had met with major China-based bitcoin exchanges to reinforce the importance of remaining compliant with “relevant laws and regulations.”

The tenor of the statements was markedly different, but let’s focus on the numbers.

Then and now

Following both announcements, bitcoin quickly fell below $1,000, which is what has led to the false proclamation that bitcoin hasn’t changed a bit since 2013.

I believe such a proclamation is born of ignorance around the specific market dynamics.

As shown below, the daily percent changes in bitcoin’s price both leading up to the PBOC announcement, and after the announcement, have not been nearly as severe as they were in 2013.

On the X-axis of the graph is a metric called, ‘Days Removed from People’s Bank of China Announcement’. In other words, the zero point for 2013 is 5th December, while for 2017 it’s 6th January: those are the days when the PBOC announcements went public.

“-60” is sixty days before the PBOC announcement, in each respective year.

Source: ARK Investment Management LLC, data sourced from CoinDesk BPI
Source: ARK Investment Management LLC, data sourced from CoinDesk BPI

Taking the standard deviation of these daily percent price changes yields one of the most common metrics for volatility, as shown below.

In 2013, the volatility in the 60 days leading up to the PBOC announcement was more than 3x the volatility preceding the PBOC announcement in 2017.

The volatility in the week after was twice as great in 2013, as well.

volatility-1

Some context

It appears, however, that some bitcoin investors are suffering PTSD. After all, the 2013 announcement precipitated a long slide in bitcoin’s price through 2014, bottoming in January 2015.

Such fear may explain why volatility on a relative basis jumped more after the recent announcement than it did in 2013. In other words, in 2013 the volatility roughly doubled after the PBOC announcement, while this year it has roughly tripled.

That said, volatility after the PBOC announcement this time around is still less than the volatility before the PBOC announcement in 2013.

Critics have come out of the woodwork recently, many once again proclaiming bitcoin is too volatile for most portfolios.

However, if an investor has held Twitter, LinkedIn, Workday, Netflix, GoPro, Tableau and many more high-flying tech names over the last few years, then they have endured single day drops greater than bitcoin has experienced over the last week.

A new asset class

I think bitcoin’s subdued volatility in the face of fears over China is a sign of its maturing markets.

For instance, liquidity has improved considerably, with global trading volumes roughly 30x greater than they were in late 2013.

Meanwhile, it appears a more informed base of investors now has the conviction to hold through the whims of nation-states, picking up the slack from weak hands.

Yet, at the moment, bitcoin may not be stable enough to be a currency.

Its price swings are still great enough that they could cause havoc if bitcoin was a broadly used unit of account (and they do wreak havoc on other cryptocurrencies, where bitcoin is often used as the unit of account).

Furthermore, changes in bitcoin’s price make it harder to use bitcoin as a means of exchange, because significant exchange rate risk can arise.

But, if bitcoin is a new asset class — as I’ve put forth in paper authored with Coinbase — then it doesn’t need to behave like other assets we already know in order to gain mainstream adoption.

I think it just needs to mature, and signs are that it’s doing just that.

Old phone, new phone image via Shutterstock

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, CoinDesk.

Prices

2016 New gTLD Year in Review (Infographic)

This post provides an overview of The 2016 New gTLD Year in Review infographic, reflecting on some of the intriguing highlights of the gTLD industry.

The data analyzed within the infographic is based on the following:

– New Top Level Domains (TLDs) contained in the data set reflect open TLDs and exclude single registrants such as brands

– For greater insight, TLDs have been separated into four quartiles or ‘tiers’ with tier 1 being the top 25% and tier 4 being the bottom 25%

– Initial registration upswings have been eliminated with TLDs in the data set to be in General Availability for at least 60 days

– Top ten based on projected yearly revenues based on daily registration volumes

– Registry revenues do not include premium name sales as dependable revenues are not available

– Operational losses are based on TLD revenues with a conservative $150k in expenses

– Revenues are based on the average retail price over four registrars (101Domain, eNom, GoDaddy and United Domains) in December 2016

– If significantly low registration pricing (less than $5) was employed on an extended or repetitive basis, the lowest price was used. This is a change from prior comparisons where the TLD was removed from the data set.

* * *

Top Level Domain Statistics and Business Implications 2016 Overview

  • The dataset analyzed contains 475 TLDs that were in general availability for at least 60 days (an increase of 63 over 2015)
  • Average number of registrations per day is 66
  • Top 25 TLDs account for 40% revenues and 12% of registration volumes (significant change from 2015 with half of revenues accounting for half of the registration volume)
  • Less than 4% of TLDs will exceed ICANN’s minimum yearly fee
  • Largest group of TLDs are in the $20 – $25 retail price range followed by the $25 – $30
  • Average revenue of all gTLDs is $252k
  • Average retail prices vary ($34.14 to $206.70) within each tier differ yet the median price variance is less significant ($28.49 to $33.74)
  • All tiers have a ‘very weak’ correlation between price and volume
  • Based on today’s data, 66% of TLDs are projected to operate at a loss for the next year based on conservative, yearly expenses of $150k; with over 400 TLDs belonging to portfolio companies, the percentage decreases

2016 Insights from gTLD Statistics and Business Implications by Quartile

Tier 1: Trailblazers – Leading TLDs with a consistent gap over the other three tiers based on higher prices and consistent volume

  • Average retail price of $207 (increase from $91 in 2015) and a median of $32.99 (decrease from $35 in 2015 but lower than tier 3 of $33.74)
  • 5 out of 10 of the highest average retail priced TLDs are in tier 1 (.auto, .car, .cars, .security, .protection)
  • 70% of TLDs in tier 1 in 2015 remain in tier 1 in 2016; However, 51% had a reduction in their retail price on average $12.47 with a median of $3.72 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 48 but with a mean volume decline of 15
  • Projected yearly volume remains relatively unchanged with a small decrease of 2.2% over 2015
  • 34% and 42% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 1
  • Average TLD length is up to 5.45 characters in length
  • Deeply discounted TLDs in tier 1 include .loan, .online, .site, .gdn, .bid, .tech
  • Tier 1 TLDs include: .vip, .shop, .mom, .bank, .design, .nyc, .games, .city, .lawyer
  • More precise pricing needs to be tracked to provide comparable yearly revenue projections and analysis

Tier 2: Path Finders – Finding their Way

  • Average retail price jumped from $51 in 2015 to $75 in 2016; However, the median price had a small increase moving from $29.99 to $30.49
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 2 in 2015 remain in tier 2 in 2016; However, 31% had a reduction in their retail price on average $1.82 with a median decrease of $8.09 resulting in an average registration volume decrease of 1 but with a median decrease of 8
  • 32% and 64% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 2
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.05 characters in length
  • Average volume in 2016 increased just over 4.1% to 8,728 from 8,387 in 2015
  • Tier 2 TLDs include:.gift, .racing, .video, .taxi, ,bar, .earth are in the second tier of gTLDs

Tier 3: Campers – Niche groups of TLDs

  • Average retail price in tier 3 is $101.27 and a median price of $33.74
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 3 in 2015 remain in tier 3 in 2016; However, 26% had an increase in their retail price on average $3.67 with a median reduction of $4.07 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 2 but with a median decrease of 3
  • 21% and 71% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 3
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.38 characters in length
  • Tier 3 TLDs include: .estate, .holiday, .codes, .cards, .soccer, .accountants, .toys

Tier 4: Hikers – Determining a pathway up!

  • Lowest pricing amongst all tiers with an average retail price of $34.14 (up from $31.62 in 2015) and a median price of $28.49 (down from $28.74 in 2015)
  • 80% of TLDs in tier 4 in 2015 remain in tier 4 in 2016; However, 29% had an increase in their retail price on average $4.92 with a median reduction of $2.35 resulting in an average and median registration volume decrease of 2
  • Projected volume has grown due to TLDs who have offered significant discounts but with total revenues remaining in tier 4
  • 20% and 75% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 4
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.29 characters in length
  • Tier 4 TLDs include: .joburg, .cologne, .florist, .actor, .supply, .gripe, .sarl

gTLD Business Implications for 2017

  • As the number of new TLD delegations tapers off, 2017 will be interesting as the industry shifts from launches to operations will play a bigger role. As such, TLDs rising to tier 1 at the end of the year will likely be diverse from prior years
  • Average registration volumes have increased to 23,900 an average increase of 5,650 over 2015
  • Number of TLDs offering deeply discounted registrations has also increased over 2015
  • Average retail prices have increased by $45 over 2015 with almost no change in the median price $-0.038
  • Top 5% of TLDs account for 40% of all projected revenues
  • In 77% of all cases, the singular TLDs ranks higher than the plural TLD i.e. .loan/.loans, .game/.games, .accountant/.accountants
  • Volume of IDNs in tier 1 have increased to 37% (up from 26% in 2015), tier 2 and tier 3 each have 15% (tier 2 down from 22% in 2015 and tier 3 up 11%). Tier 4 remains unchanged with 48%
  • Premium name revenues have not been taken into account which can have significant impacts on the financial performance of a TLD

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any questions, insight or items to consider for future analysis.

By Christa Taylor, Christa Taylor is the CEO of DotTBA. More blog posts from Christa Taylor can also be read here.

Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains

Fedora, Manjaro, and Ubuntu MATE on the Raspberry Pi 2 & 3

Pi 3

Raspberry Pi 3 Model B.


Image: J.A. Watson

In my previous post I wrote about SuSE Linux (SLES and openSuSE) on the Raspberry Pi 3. I had a variety of problems that caused me to end up rather disappointed and frustrated. So I’m hoping for much better results, and a better experience with Fedora 25, Ubuntu MATE, and Manjaro ARM on both the Raspberry Pi 2 and 3.

All three of these are 32-bit distributions which do not try to use the 64-bit architecture (aarm64) of the Pi 3, but at this point I am much more interested in successful installation and operation than I am in exploring the latest capabilities of the Pi 3 architecture.

Fedora 25

The Fedora Magazine announced Fedora for the Raspberry Pi 2 and 3 with Fedora 25 Beta, and there is now a Fedora Wiki Raspberry Pi page which gives lots of details about the distribution.

The really good news here is that the Raspberry Pi distribution is a full-fledged member of the Fedora family. That means that the standard Fedora Workstation (Gnome 3) is not the only version available, most of the other Fedora Spins are available as well, including KDE, MATE, Xfce and LXDE. Oh, and the Server and Minimal distributions too! I think the spins are probably the best news of all, because I shudder to think what using Gnome 3 is going to be like on a Raspberry Pi 2…

Hmmm, I wonder if the i3wm packages will also be available after I install Fedora. I can’t wait to find out, because I’ve been trying to find a way to get a current version of i3 running on a Pi for some time now. I’m keeping my fingers crossed on this one.

I started by downloading the standard Fedora Workstation (Gnome 3 desktop) image, and then copying it to a microSD card. I gave a simple example of this in the previous post, but here is a more complete and robust example:

xz -cd IMAGE.xz | dd of=/dev/sdX bs=4M iflag=fullblock oflag=direct status=progress

As usual, replace IMAGE with the specific file name that you just downloaded, and sdX with the device name for your SD card. The flags added to the end are just to add some insurance; they tell the dd command to make sure that it reads a full block on each input, to write the output directly from the input buffer, and to give you a nice status display as it works. This command can take quite a while to complete, so the status line can be a nice touch if you want to see that it is still alive and running.

I then inserted that card into a Raspberry Pi 3 and powered up… and it booted like a dream! Yes! The initial boot sequence walks through a setup/configure process which asks for the language, keyboard layout, timezone and user account creation. It then continues to boot up to a login screen – where I got my first unpleasant surprise.

Once again, my Logitech Unifying keyboard/mouse receiver didn’t work. Well, sort of didn’t work. I discovered that it kind of worked, the mouse was ok, but the keyboard didn’t work.

So I plugged in the wired USB keyboard that I still had handy after the SuSE tests, and that worked. But then I stumbled across the really weird part – the Unifying keyboard now worked, as long as a wired keyboard was also plugged in. Figure that one out! I plugged things in and out several times just to be sure that it was really doing what I thought it was. Yup, it was. Very weird.

Anyway, once I got logged in, and the desktop came up (which took quite some time), it looked like this:

fedoragnome.png

Fedora 25 Gnome 3 on a Raspberry Pi 3.


Image: J.A. Watson

The wired network connection worked just fine, but the Raspberry Pi 3 built-in WiFi and Bluetooth adapters don’t work. At this point I decided to go back and look more carefully at the Fedora Wiki page to see what it said about hardware support. Hmm. Under Supported Hardware it only says ‘Raspberry Pi Model B versions 2 and 3’. No details about specific chips, adapters and peripherals. But in the Frequently Asked Questions it gives a lot more information:

  • Pi 3 WiFi: Not yet. Soon, hopefully
  • Pi 3 Bluetooth: Not yet. Soon, hopefully
  • Sound: Not yet. Soon, hopefully.
  • Camera: Not yet.
  • Accelerated Media Decoding: Not yet.
  • HDMI-CEC (Consumer Electronics Control): Yes!
  • Touch Display: Not yet. Soon, hopefully.
  • Composite Video Out: Not yet. Soon, hopefully.
  • HATs: Not yet. Soon, maybe. It’s complicated.
  • GPIO: Not yet.
  • SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface): Yes!
  • I2C: Yes!

Whew, there are precious few Yes answers there, but a lot of hope for the future.

I then shut down the Pi 3, and tried a Pi 2 with the same card – and it booted! Hooray! Well, it booted, but it was slow, like I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything so slow running Linux before. It was minutes before the login screen came up, and then several more minutes after I entered my login name and password before the Gnome desktop was up and seemed to be ready to use.

I say “seemed to be ready” because I am now convinced that this version is simply too slow to be usable on the Pi 2. Besides the obvious things like taking several minutes to do simple things like start a new application window, it is so slow that it actually misses things like mouse clicks and key presses. The mouse problem is irritating – you click something, and nothing happens, but you’re used to it taking a minute or two so you wait until after several minutes you click the same thing again, and then finally something (slowly) starts to come to life.

But the keyboard problem is a lot more than just irritating. In case you don’t know much about low-level input, a keystroke is actually made up of two separate events – a key press and a key release. One or both of these events is intermittently being missed on the Pi 2, so for example sometimes when I typed a single character it would simply repeat endlessly, as if I were holding the key down, because the key release event had been missed. Not good. Really, really not good.

As I said, this kind of problem makes Fedora 25 Workstation unusuable on the Pi 2 as far as I am concerned. I can’t imagine that anyone would tolerate these problems for more than a minute a two before giving up. So the next logical step was to try one of the Spins, in hopes that a lighter weight desktop would not have some of these problems.

I decided to go to the other extreme, and installed Fedora 25 LXDE. Download, copy to SD and boot were the same. The initial boot/configuration sequence was slightly different, because it looked like it actually used Anaconda to get the timezone, user account and root password – but unfortunately it didn’t give me the opportunity to select the keyboard layout.

Once it was up and I logged in, I once again hit a wall – and unfortunately an even worse one than with the Workstation (Gnome) version. Trying to launch any application simply hung the Pi, permanently. Ugh. Really not good.

OK, one more try – but only because I like Fedora a lot, and I really want it to work… I thought maybe the LXDE version wasn’t getting as much attention as the more common Xfce version (see, I can rationalize anything!). So I downloaded and installed the Xfce spin. It booted, and I started an xterm. That worked, so I was encouraged… then I tried to start Firefox, and it hung again. Grrr. Reboot (read as: yank the power cord in disgust), login again, and this time even starting an xterm caused it to hang. Rats! Ok, I give up, at least for now.

It is clear, though, that work on Fedora for the Raspberry Pi is continuing, because after I completed this sequence of tests, I came back a day later just to check a couple more things, and it found 445 more updates to install! I let the Workstation (Gnome) version slog through downloading and installing those (which took the best part of an hour), then rebooted with high hopes once again. Only to have those hopes dashed on the cruel shoals of reality. It still had the same performance problem, still missed keystrokes and mouse clicks, and the Pi 3 built-in WiFi and Blutooth were still not recognized.

I am nothing if not determined, though. I thought, heck, that many updates, they must have at least found what was causing the Xfce and LXDE desktops to hang… so I let the whole update process slog through again on the Xfce version. Another hour. It’s a good thing I was making chocolate chip cookies while all of this was going on, so I had something else to do.

Then came the final blow… after the updates finished I rebooted, and got nothing but kernel panics. I didn’t even bother to try to figure out why. Enough is enough.

So at this point I am ready to say that Fedora 25 Workstation (Gnome 3 desktop) works, and could be used on the Pi 3 if you have sufficient patience, but on the Pi 2 it is so slow and error-prone that it is unusable. Time to move on to the next candidate.

Manjaro ARM

I make no secret of my admiration for the Manjaro Linux distribution, and the Manjaro ARM version is one more reason for that admiration. A new release (16.12) was announced just before Christmas, so I have been really looking forward to trying that out. Unlike all of the other non-Raspbian distributions I have looked at so far, Manjaro ARM is not for the Pi 2 3 only, there is a version for the original Raspberry Pi (now known informally as the Pi 1) and the Pi Zero.

The installation images are available on the Manjaro-ARM Downloads page, in four variations:

  • Minimal Edition: No GUI or desktop, gives you a simple text-mode login and CLI prompt. The full repos are available, so you can start from the Minimal Edition and create whatever you want, exactly the way you want it.
  • Base Edition: Xfce desktop, very similar to the flagship Manjaro distribution.
  • Server Edition: No GUI desktop, but preloaded and configured with a LAMP stack (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP/Python/Perl).
  • Media Edition: Kodi preinstalled for media streaming

For the Raspberry Pi 2 and 3, there are also Community Editions with KDE, MATE and LXQt desktops available.

The distribution files are ZIP-compressed images, rather than xz-compressed like the others we have seen so far. The general procedure for copying the image to disk is similar to those above, just substitute unzip -p for xz -cd.

The first boot does not include any kind of setup or configuration sequence, so it comes up with a U.S. keyboard layout, and with the default user manjaro. The first thing to do is at least change the default password for that account, or even better create a new user account for yourself and then disable or delete the manjaro account.

As with the previous two distributions, I tried Manjaro ARM on the Raspberry Pi 3 first. My first impression was positive – it was noticeably faster than Fedora had been.

manjaropi.png

Manjaro ARM 16.12 on a Raspberry Pi 3


J.A. Watson

Hardware support is good, the Pi 3 WiFi and Bluetooth adapters came right up, and even my Unifying keyboard and mouse worked! Yay! My spirits were rising again now.

The first thing I did, again, was install the latest updates. The Octopi notifier in the panel announces that updates are available, so you can just right-click that and select Update Manager to get them going.

I spent a good bit of time trying things out on the Pi 3 with Manjaro (in fact, I am still writing this post on it right now), and it really does seem to work quite well. Admittedly it is slow – probably slower than most people would be willing to tolerate as an everyday work system. But as was the case with Ubuntu MATE, once you get an application loaded and running, it seems to chug along at a decent rate. It’s just getting new things started that really takes a painful amount of time.

I’ve only run into one significant problem with it so far. The default browser is Chromium, which of course is not my favorite. But the real problem was that when I tried to use it, it didn’t seem to be good for much other than saying “Well, snap, there was a problem displaying that page”. After a couple of repetitions of that I gave up and installed Firefox, and that seems to work just dandy.

Now, remember at the beginning of this post I said that I was looking for a chance to try the i3 desktop on a Raspberry Pi? I decided this was the time. I have used Manjaro i3 on several of my laptops, and it works very well. So if the i3 packages are available in the Manjaro ARM repos, this could be a good opportunity.

A quick check in the Octopi package manager, and there they were! Hooray! Downloading and installing took just a minute or two, then I simply logged out, I didn’t even reboot. The Session selection at the top right of the Manjaro login screen now included i3 as well as Xfce, and when I chose that and then logged in, I got a lovely i3 desktop. Best of all, login was noticeably quicker than it had been with Xfce, and the overall feel seemed better as well.

I started Firefox, Thunar and an xterm, just for demonstration purposes, and it all came up very nicely:

manjaroi3.png

Manjaro ARM i3wm – Raspberry Pi 3.


Image: J.A. Watson

Wow, is this ever good. I was so pleased with it, and so absorbed in testing, adjusting, and generally marveling at it that I nearly burned a tray of cookies!

Ubuntu MATE

I wrote about Ubuntu MATE on the Pi 2 3 last May, and most of what I said then is still true so I won’t repeat it all here. The Ubuntu MATE for the Raspberry Pi 2 and Raspberry Pi 3 web page still doesn’t mention the fact that the installation image doesn’t fit on some 8GB microSD cards, so watch out for that – the simple solution is to just use a 16GB card for this installation.

When I got to the Download page my hopes were briefly raised by the choice between 16.04 LTS and 16.10, but unfortunately the Raspberry Pi download is only available for 16.04 LTS. I was then concerned that the Raspberry Pi version might be getting left behind, but that seems not to be the case. For the main distribution they are going to stick to LTS versions, but if you want/need 16.10 and later non-LTS versions, you can upgrade after installation.

The download is a 1.1GB xz-compressed image, which then must be uncompressed and copied to an SD card. The commands to do this are the same as given above for Fedora.

I covered the rest of the installation and initial configuration in considerable detail in my previous post about this distribution, so please refer to that for instructions. Once you get through the first boot and initial configuration, you will get a desktop like this:

Ubuntu MATE 16.04

Ubuntu MATE 16.04 LTS on the Raspberry Pi 3.


Image: J.A. Watson

Because this is still the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS distribution, there are a LOT of updates available now, and it is important that you get them installed right away. Go to System/Administration/Software Updates, and let them install. The update installation takes a very long time – don’t just plan to get a cup of coffee while they download and install, it’s more like go for lunch and a nap. When it has finally finished you have to reboot, and then you’re ready to go.

The built-in WiFi and Bluetooth both worked with no problem. The controls to connect to a wireless network, and to pair with a Bluetooth mouse were familiar and easy to use. The MATE desktop actually performs pretty well on the Pi 3, and was pleasant to use.

Similarly on the Pi 2, every WiFi and Bluetooth dongle that I have worked without problem. Performance was obviously somewhat less than on the Pi 3, but nowhere near the extreme difference that I had seen with Fedora between the 2 and 3.

There’s not much else I can add here that I didn’t say already the last time I looked at Ubuntu MATE, so check there if you want more details.

Summary

I’m a bit surprised, disappointed and encouraged all at the same time. Surprised and disappointed by the number of problems that I had with Fedora 25, and the magnitude of some of those problems, particularly on the Pi 2 and with the Fedora spins. I was really hoping that I would be able to install Fedora and just use it reasonably happily, and it did not turn out that way. I will cling to the positive side, though, that this is now an official Fedora distribution, they are continuing to work and improve it, and that means it is very likely going to get steadily better. Perhaps by the time Fedora 26 comes along it will be a lot more like what I was hoping for right now.

But I am encouraged by both Manjaro ARM and Ubuntu MATE. Both of these installed easily and worked really well. Both recognized the Pi 3 built-in WiFi and Bluetooth adapters, and both performed reasonably well.

The best of all for me personally, though, was getting i3 installed on Manjaro ARM, and seeing how well it worked. Beyond the fact that I really like i3, I also think that it is a particularly good match for the Raspberry Pi. It is small, light and fast, and it stays completely out of your way.

What’s next? For the final installment of this series I’m going to focus on the original Pi Model B and B+, and the Pi Zero. That means I will be trying the Manjaro Minimal distribution and PiCore Linux. If I am very ambitious, and very lucky, I also hope to try adding the i3 desktop to the Manjaro Minimal distribution.

Read more about Raspberry Pi and Linux by J.A. Watson

Bitcoin: This is Not the Same as 2013

Chris Burniske is blockchain products lead at ARK Invest, an investment manager focused on disruptive innovation and co-author of the new white paper, “Bitcoin, a New Asset Class“.

In this CoinDesk opinion piece, Burniske pushes back on the mainstream media, arguing that the idea bitcoin is merely repeating the infamy of 2013 is misinformed.

price-bpi

A common but mistaken refrain is building that bitcoin’s behavior of late has been a replica of the infamous late 2013 rise and crash.

Certainly, a similar narrative could be spun: bitcoin breaks $1,000, the People’s Bank of China issues some comments that scare people, bitcoin crashes. But if a few marketplace characteristics are investigated, I think the difference in bitcoin’s maturity between then and now becomes clear.

On 5th December, 2013, a short while after bitcoin broke $1,000, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) sent out a statement claiming bitcoin was “not a currency in the real meaning of the word”. The PBOC went on to restrict financial institutions from getting further involved with the technology.

Last week, on 6th January, 2017, a short while after bitcoin broke $1,000 for the second time in its eight-year life, the PBOC sent out new statements indicating that its representatives had met with major China-based bitcoin exchanges to reinforce the importance of remaining compliant with “relevant laws and regulations.”

The tenor of the statements was markedly different, but let’s focus on the numbers.

Then and now

Following both announcements, bitcoin quickly fell below $1,000, which is what has led to the false proclamation that bitcoin hasn’t changed a bit since 2013.

I believe such a proclamation is born of ignorance around the specific market dynamics.

As shown below, the daily percent changes in bitcoin’s price both leading up to the PBOC announcement, and after the announcement, have not been nearly as severe as they were in 2013.

On the X-axis of the graph is a metric called, ‘Days Removed from People’s Bank of China Announcement’. In other words, the zero point for 2013 is 5th December, while for 2017 it’s 6th January: those are the days when the PBOC announcements went public.

“-60” is sixty days before the PBOC announcement, in each respective year.

Source: ARK Investment Management LLC, data sourced from CoinDesk BPI
Source: ARK Investment Management LLC, data sourced from CoinDesk BPI

Taking the standard deviation of these daily percent price changes yields one of the most common metrics for volatility, as shown below.

In 2013, the volatility in the 60 days leading up to the PBOC announcement was more than 3x the volatility preceding the PBOC announcement in 2017.

The volatility in the week after was twice as great in 2013, as well.

volatility-1

Some context

It appears, however, that some bitcoin investors are suffering PTSD. After all, the 2013 announcement precipitated a long slide in bitcoin’s price through 2014, bottoming in January 2015.

Such fear may explain why volatility on a relative basis jumped more after the recent announcement than it did in 2013. In other words, in 2013 the volatility roughly doubled after the PBOC announcement, while this year it has roughly tripled.

That said, volatility after the PBOC announcement this time around is still less than the volatility before the PBOC announcement in 2013.

Critics have come out of the woodwork recently, many once again proclaiming bitcoin is too volatile for most portfolios.

However, if an investor has held Twitter, LinkedIn, Workday, Netflix, GoPro, Tableau and many more high-flying tech names over the last few years, then they have endured single day drops greater than bitcoin has experienced over the last week.

A new asset class

I think bitcoin’s subdued volatility in the face of fears over China is a sign of its maturing markets.

For instance, liquidity has improved considerably, with global trading volumes roughly 30x greater than they were in late 2013.

Meanwhile, it appears a more informed base of investors now has the conviction to hold through the whims of nation-states, picking up the slack from weak hands.

Yet, at the moment, bitcoin may not be stable enough to be a currency.

Its price swings are still great enough that they could cause havoc if bitcoin was a broadly used unit of account (and they do wreak havoc on other cryptocurrencies, where bitcoin is often used as the unit of account).

Furthermore, changes in bitcoin’s price make it harder to use bitcoin as a means of exchange, because significant exchange rate risk can arise.

But, if bitcoin is a new asset class — as I’ve put forth in paper authored with Coinbase — then it doesn’t need to behave like other assets we already know in order to gain mainstream adoption.

I think it just needs to mature, and signs are that it’s doing just that.

Old phone, new phone image via Shutterstock

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, CoinDesk.

Prices

2016 New gTLD Year in Review (Infographic)

This post provides an overview of The 2016 New gTLD Year in Review infographic, reflecting on some of the intriguing highlights of the gTLD industry.

The data analyzed within the infographic is based on the following:

– New Top Level Domains (TLDs) contained in the data set reflect open TLDs and exclude single registrants such as brands

– For greater insight, TLDs have been separated into four quartiles or ‘tiers’ with tier 1 being the top 25% and tier 4 being the bottom 25%

– Initial registration upswings have been eliminated with TLDs in the data set to be in General Availability for at least 60 days

– Top ten based on projected yearly revenues based on daily registration volumes

– Registry revenues do not include premium name sales as dependable revenues are not available

– Operational losses are based on TLD revenues with a conservative $150k in expenses

– Revenues are based on the average retail price over four registrars (101Domain, eNom, GoDaddy and United Domains) in December 2016

– If significantly low registration pricing (less than $5) was employed on an extended or repetitive basis, the lowest price was used. This is a change from prior comparisons where the TLD was removed from the data set.

* * *

Top Level Domain Statistics and Business Implications 2016 Overview

  • The dataset analyzed contains 475 TLDs that were in general availability for at least 60 days (an increase of 63 over 2015)
  • Average number of registrations per day is 66
  • Top 25 TLDs account for 40% revenues and 12% of registration volumes (significant change from 2015 with half of revenues accounting for half of the registration volume)
  • Less than 4% of TLDs will exceed ICANN’s minimum yearly fee
  • Largest group of TLDs are in the $20 – $25 retail price range followed by the $25 – $30
  • Average revenue of all gTLDs is $252k
  • Average retail prices vary ($34.14 to $206.70) within each tier differ yet the median price variance is less significant ($28.49 to $33.74)
  • All tiers have a ‘very weak’ correlation between price and volume
  • Based on today’s data, 66% of TLDs are projected to operate at a loss for the next year based on conservative, yearly expenses of $150k; with over 400 TLDs belonging to portfolio companies, the percentage decreases

2016 Insights from gTLD Statistics and Business Implications by Quartile

Tier 1: Trailblazers – Leading TLDs with a consistent gap over the other three tiers based on higher prices and consistent volume

  • Average retail price of $207 (increase from $91 in 2015) and a median of $32.99 (decrease from $35 in 2015 but lower than tier 3 of $33.74)
  • 5 out of 10 of the highest average retail priced TLDs are in tier 1 (.auto, .car, .cars, .security, .protection)
  • 70% of TLDs in tier 1 in 2015 remain in tier 1 in 2016; However, 51% had a reduction in their retail price on average $12.47 with a median of $3.72 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 48 but with a mean volume decline of 15
  • Projected yearly volume remains relatively unchanged with a small decrease of 2.2% over 2015
  • 34% and 42% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 1
  • Average TLD length is up to 5.45 characters in length
  • Deeply discounted TLDs in tier 1 include .loan, .online, .site, .gdn, .bid, .tech
  • Tier 1 TLDs include: .vip, .shop, .mom, .bank, .design, .nyc, .games, .city, .lawyer
  • More precise pricing needs to be tracked to provide comparable yearly revenue projections and analysis

Tier 2: Path Finders – Finding their Way

  • Average retail price jumped from $51 in 2015 to $75 in 2016; However, the median price had a small increase moving from $29.99 to $30.49
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 2 in 2015 remain in tier 2 in 2016; However, 31% had a reduction in their retail price on average $1.82 with a median decrease of $8.09 resulting in an average registration volume decrease of 1 but with a median decrease of 8
  • 32% and 64% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 2
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.05 characters in length
  • Average volume in 2016 increased just over 4.1% to 8,728 from 8,387 in 2015
  • Tier 2 TLDs include:.gift, .racing, .video, .taxi, ,bar, .earth are in the second tier of gTLDs

Tier 3: Campers – Niche groups of TLDs

  • Average retail price in tier 3 is $101.27 and a median price of $33.74
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 3 in 2015 remain in tier 3 in 2016; However, 26% had an increase in their retail price on average $3.67 with a median reduction of $4.07 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 2 but with a median decrease of 3
  • 21% and 71% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 3
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.38 characters in length
  • Tier 3 TLDs include: .estate, .holiday, .codes, .cards, .soccer, .accountants, .toys

Tier 4: Hikers – Determining a pathway up!

  • Lowest pricing amongst all tiers with an average retail price of $34.14 (up from $31.62 in 2015) and a median price of $28.49 (down from $28.74 in 2015)
  • 80% of TLDs in tier 4 in 2015 remain in tier 4 in 2016; However, 29% had an increase in their retail price on average $4.92 with a median reduction of $2.35 resulting in an average and median registration volume decrease of 2
  • Projected volume has grown due to TLDs who have offered significant discounts but with total revenues remaining in tier 4
  • 20% and 75% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 4
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.29 characters in length
  • Tier 4 TLDs include: .joburg, .cologne, .florist, .actor, .supply, .gripe, .sarl

gTLD Business Implications for 2017

  • As the number of new TLD delegations tapers off, 2017 will be interesting as the industry shifts from launches to operations will play a bigger role. As such, TLDs rising to tier 1 at the end of the year will likely be diverse from prior years
  • Average registration volumes have increased to 23,900 an average increase of 5,650 over 2015
  • Number of TLDs offering deeply discounted registrations has also increased over 2015
  • Average retail prices have increased by $45 over 2015 with almost no change in the median price $-0.038
  • Top 5% of TLDs account for 40% of all projected revenues
  • In 77% of all cases, the singular TLDs ranks higher than the plural TLD i.e. .loan/.loans, .game/.games, .accountant/.accountants
  • Volume of IDNs in tier 1 have increased to 37% (up from 26% in 2015), tier 2 and tier 3 each have 15% (tier 2 down from 22% in 2015 and tier 3 up 11%). Tier 4 remains unchanged with 48%
  • Premium name revenues have not been taken into account which can have significant impacts on the financial performance of a TLD

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any questions, insight or items to consider for future analysis.

By Christa Taylor, Christa Taylor is the CEO of DotTBA. More blog posts from Christa Taylor can also be read here.

Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains

Oi, Mint 18.1! KEEP UP! Ubuntu LTS love breeds a laggard

The Linux Mint project dropped a last-minute gift during the Christmas period – Mint 18.1.

Mint 18.1 builds on the same Ubuntu LTS release base as Mint 18.0, the result being a smooth upgrade path for 18.0 users and the relative stability of Ubuntu’s latest LTS effort, 16.04.

In keeping with Ubuntu’s LTS releases, Mint isn’t stuck chasing Ubuntu updates. Rather the project can pursue its own efforts like the homegrown Cinnamon and MATE desktops, and the new X-Apps set of default applications.

This process worked quite well throughout the Mint 17.x release cycle, but with Mint 18 we were starting to see some of the downsides. Mint 18.1 is a nice enough update for the Mint-specific parts of the stack, but it definitely lags a bit in other areas.

The most obvious lag is in the kernel, which is 4.4 out of the box, though 4.8 is available through the Mint repos. It’s unclear to me whether Mint 18.1 fully supports kernel 4.8. It’s available in the repos, and I’ve successfully updated one install on a Lenovo x240, but n=1 evidence is not the best support for running off to update your kernel.

Frankly, I would have to assume that since Mint 18.1 ships with 4.4, you should probably stick with 4.4. If you feel out of date, maybe install Debian 8 in a virtual machine and marvel at the fact that it still uses 3.16. Of course, if you don’t have newish hardware – particularly Skylake or Kaby Lake-based machines – the older kernel might not matter to you.

Provided the older kernel doesn’t bother you, or you’re OK attempting a kernel update, Mint 18.1 does a nice job of continuing to refine the Linux Mint experience for both its primary desktops – Cinnamon and MATE.

On the Cinnamon side you’ll get Cinnamon 3.2, which is notable for some nice new UI features, including support for vertical panels and sound effects, along with your displaying notifications and some new menu animations. Cinnamon also dispenses with a visual element called box pointers. Essential menus that load from a button or other menu no longer visually “point” back to the menu. This makes more sophisticated themes possible since developers don’t have to overcome the pointer visual cue if they want to completely relocate a menu.

The vertical panels support is also welcome for anyone working on a cramped laptop screen, since they’re typically more unused space horizontally than vertically.

Cinnamon 3.2 also has a completely rewritten screensaver and, my personal favourite, the ability to run apps with optirun if Bumblebee is installed. That is, if you have dual graphics cards and Bumblebee installed you can set the default to the less powerful card, but then right-click an item in the menu and launch it with the more powerful card, for example GIMP, a video editor, or graphics-intensive game.

While Cinnamon is the flashier of Linux Mint’s two desktops, MATE is every bit as good in my experience and with Linux Mint 18.1 MATE has been updated to MATE 1.16. Most of what’s new in MATE 1.16 is under the hood, particularly the fact that MATE has nearly finished the transition to GTK+ 3 components, which goes a long way to improving some of the lingering little UI problems of previous releases.

The GTK+ 3 support also means third-party themes should be easier to build, though in the meantime it may break some of your old favourites so proceed with caution if you use a custom theme.

There are also a number of changes in this release that apply to both desktops, including updates to Linux Mint’s X-apps set of default applications that have been customised and integrated into both desktops. Xed, the default text editor – better known as “Text Editor” within Mint – gains a new search-as-you-type feature that now opens at the bottom of the windows and is comparable to the search features in Firefox. Xed also now supports dark themes, like the Mint Y theme.

Mint’s Update Manager has been updated as well with a new column that shows the origin of a package. Out of the box that means primarily Mint’s repos along with Ubuntu’s for things that pull directly from upstream. Any third-party repos you add will show up as such here as well.

The last release of Mint saw an addition to the Update Manager that lets you set a default update practice ranging from the very conservative to “update all the things” with a middle ground option being the default. While there’s nothing wrong with this in itself, Mint’s wording is a little loaded to say the least. The most conservative setting is called “don’t break my computer!”, which implies that the others will, which is completely untrue and does a disservice to those completely new to Linux, of which Mint likely has no shortage.

While “don’t break my computer!” is not the default setting, labelling it as such and combining it with the further encouragement “Recommended for novice users” almost guarantees that new users – those who would likely most benefit from an up-to-date and secure system – will opt for this setting.

Here’s the bottom line: out of the box Mint effectively blocks some updates to the system, which means Mint users may well be running software with known security vulnerabilities, which could theoretically be exploited. From a security purist standpoint Mint is a step down from Ubuntu.

Mint 18.1 Update Manager

The Update Manager lists packages’ provenance

Practically speaking, though, vulnerabilities in Xorg or the kernel are more difficult to exploit using a browser (the most common source of attacks) and Mint does a good job of keeping web browsers up to date even with the default settings.

At the end of the day I suggest you enable the “always update everything” setting, which, for the record, is roughly the same as what you’d get out of the box with Ubuntu. You’re still always able to chose what you’d like to update and when. While I understand Mint’s stance on regressions and the reasons why it doesn’t want to update everything out of the box (increased stability being the main reason) I hope that in the future Mint will at least consider changing the wording on its Update Manager splash screen to something more neutral than “don’t break my computer!”

So, big question: should you update to Mint 18.1? If you’re already on 18.0 then, by all means, the bug fixes alone are well worth the update. MATE users particularly will benefit from the additional GTK+ 3 support and Cinnamon’s vertical panel support is a welcome change. Remember, no matter which version you end up with, Linux Mint 18.1 is an LTS release and will be fully supported until 2021.

It’s worth noting that there are other desktops available for Linux Mint, including Xfce and KDE, but at the time of writing neither of them had been updated to Mint 18.1. Typically the Xfce version comes about a month after MATE and Cinnamon and then the KDE version after that. ®

Sponsored:
Customer Identity and Access Management

2016 New gTLD Year in Review (Infographic)

This post provides an overview of The 2016 New gTLD Year in Review infographic, reflecting on some of the intriguing highlights of the gTLD industry.

The data analyzed within the infographic is based on the following:

– New Top Level Domains (TLDs) contained in the data set reflect open TLDs and exclude single registrants such as brands

– For greater insight, TLDs have been separated into four quartiles or ‘tiers’ with tier 1 being the top 25% and tier 4 being the bottom 25%

– Initial registration upswings have been eliminated with TLDs in the data set to be in General Availability for at least 60 days

– Top ten based on projected yearly revenues based on daily registration volumes

– Registry revenues do not include premium name sales as dependable revenues are not available

– Operational losses are based on TLD revenues with a conservative $150k in expenses

– Revenues are based on the average retail price over four registrars (101Domain, eNom, GoDaddy and United Domains) in December 2016

– If significantly low registration pricing (less than $5) was employed on an extended or repetitive basis, the lowest price was used. This is a change from prior comparisons where the TLD was removed from the data set.

* * *

Top Level Domain Statistics and Business Implications 2016 Overview

  • The dataset analyzed contains 475 TLDs that were in general availability for at least 60 days (an increase of 63 over 2015)
  • Average number of registrations per day is 66
  • Top 25 TLDs account for 40% revenues and 12% of registration volumes (significant change from 2015 with half of revenues accounting for half of the registration volume)
  • Less than 4% of TLDs will exceed ICANN’s minimum yearly fee
  • Largest group of TLDs are in the $20 – $25 retail price range followed by the $25 – $30
  • Average revenue of all gTLDs is $252k
  • Average retail prices vary ($34.14 to $206.70) within each tier differ yet the median price variance is less significant ($28.49 to $33.74)
  • All tiers have a ‘very weak’ correlation between price and volume
  • Based on today’s data, 66% of TLDs are projected to operate at a loss for the next year based on conservative, yearly expenses of $150k; with over 400 TLDs belonging to portfolio companies, the percentage decreases

2016 Insights from gTLD Statistics and Business Implications by Quartile

Tier 1: Trailblazers – Leading TLDs with a consistent gap over the other three tiers based on higher prices and consistent volume

  • Average retail price of $207 (increase from $91 in 2015) and a median of $32.99 (decrease from $35 in 2015 but lower than tier 3 of $33.74)
  • 5 out of 10 of the highest average retail priced TLDs are in tier 1 (.auto, .car, .cars, .security, .protection)
  • 70% of TLDs in tier 1 in 2015 remain in tier 1 in 2016; However, 51% had a reduction in their retail price on average $12.47 with a median of $3.72 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 48 but with a mean volume decline of 15
  • Projected yearly volume remains relatively unchanged with a small decrease of 2.2% over 2015
  • 34% and 42% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 1
  • Average TLD length is up to 5.45 characters in length
  • Deeply discounted TLDs in tier 1 include .loan, .online, .site, .gdn, .bid, .tech
  • Tier 1 TLDs include: .vip, .shop, .mom, .bank, .design, .nyc, .games, .city, .lawyer
  • More precise pricing needs to be tracked to provide comparable yearly revenue projections and analysis

Tier 2: Path Finders – Finding their Way

  • Average retail price jumped from $51 in 2015 to $75 in 2016; However, the median price had a small increase moving from $29.99 to $30.49
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 2 in 2015 remain in tier 2 in 2016; However, 31% had a reduction in their retail price on average $1.82 with a median decrease of $8.09 resulting in an average registration volume decrease of 1 but with a median decrease of 8
  • 32% and 64% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 2
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.05 characters in length
  • Average volume in 2016 increased just over 4.1% to 8,728 from 8,387 in 2015
  • Tier 2 TLDs include:.gift, .racing, .video, .taxi, ,bar, .earth are in the second tier of gTLDs

Tier 3: Campers – Niche groups of TLDs

  • Average retail price in tier 3 is $101.27 and a median price of $33.74
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 3 in 2015 remain in tier 3 in 2016; However, 26% had an increase in their retail price on average $3.67 with a median reduction of $4.07 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 2 but with a median decrease of 3
  • 21% and 71% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 3
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.38 characters in length
  • Tier 3 TLDs include: .estate, .holiday, .codes, .cards, .soccer, .accountants, .toys

Tier 4: Hikers – Determining a pathway up!

  • Lowest pricing amongst all tiers with an average retail price of $34.14 (up from $31.62 in 2015) and a median price of $28.49 (down from $28.74 in 2015)
  • 80% of TLDs in tier 4 in 2015 remain in tier 4 in 2016; However, 29% had an increase in their retail price on average $4.92 with a median reduction of $2.35 resulting in an average and median registration volume decrease of 2
  • Projected volume has grown due to TLDs who have offered significant discounts but with total revenues remaining in tier 4
  • 20% and 75% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 4
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.29 characters in length
  • Tier 4 TLDs include: .joburg, .cologne, .florist, .actor, .supply, .gripe, .sarl

gTLD Business Implications for 2017

  • As the number of new TLD delegations tapers off, 2017 will be interesting as the industry shifts from launches to operations will play a bigger role. As such, TLDs rising to tier 1 at the end of the year will likely be diverse from prior years
  • Average registration volumes have increased to 23,900 an average increase of 5,650 over 2015
  • Number of TLDs offering deeply discounted registrations has also increased over 2015
  • Average retail prices have increased by $45 over 2015 with almost no change in the median price $-0.038
  • Top 5% of TLDs account for 40% of all projected revenues
  • In 77% of all cases, the singular TLDs ranks higher than the plural TLD i.e. .loan/.loans, .game/.games, .accountant/.accountants
  • Volume of IDNs in tier 1 have increased to 37% (up from 26% in 2015), tier 2 and tier 3 each have 15% (tier 2 down from 22% in 2015 and tier 3 up 11%). Tier 4 remains unchanged with 48%
  • Premium name revenues have not been taken into account which can have significant impacts on the financial performance of a TLD

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any questions, insight or items to consider for future analysis.

By Christa Taylor, Christa Taylor is the CEO of DotTBA. More blog posts from Christa Taylor can also be read here.

Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains

Oi, Mint 18.1! KEEP UP! Ubuntu LTS love breeds a laggard

The Linux Mint project dropped a last-minute gift during the Christmas period – Mint 18.1.

Mint 18.1 builds on the same Ubuntu LTS release base as Mint 18.0, the result being a smooth upgrade path for 18.0 users and the relative stability of Ubuntu’s latest LTS effort, 16.04.

In keeping with Ubuntu’s LTS releases, Mint isn’t stuck chasing Ubuntu updates. Rather the project can pursue its own efforts like the homegrown Cinnamon and MATE desktops, and the new X-Apps set of default applications.

This process worked quite well throughout the Mint 17.x release cycle, but with Mint 18 we were starting to see some of the downsides. Mint 18.1 is a nice enough update for the Mint-specific parts of the stack, but it definitely lags a bit in other areas.

The most obvious lag is in the kernel, which is 4.4 out of the box, though 4.8 is available through the Mint repos. It’s unclear to me whether Mint 18.1 fully supports kernel 4.8. It’s available in the repos, and I’ve successfully updated one install on a Lenovo x240, but n=1 evidence is not the best support for running off to update your kernel.

Frankly, I would have to assume that since Mint 18.1 ships with 4.4, you should probably stick with 4.4. If you feel out of date, maybe install Debian 8 in a virtual machine and marvel at the fact that it still uses 3.16. Of course, if you don’t have newish hardware – particularly Skylake or Kaby Lake-based machines – the older kernel might not matter to you.

Provided the older kernel doesn’t bother you, or you’re OK attempting a kernel update, Mint 18.1 does a nice job of continuing to refine the Linux Mint experience for both its primary desktops – Cinnamon and MATE.

On the Cinnamon side you’ll get Cinnamon 3.2, which is notable for some nice new UI features, including support for vertical panels and sound effects, along with your displaying notifications and some new menu animations. Cinnamon also dispenses with a visual element called box pointers. Essential menus that load from a button or other menu no longer visually “point” back to the menu. This makes more sophisticated themes possible since developers don’t have to overcome the pointer visual cue if they want to completely relocate a menu.

The vertical panels support is also welcome for anyone working on a cramped laptop screen, since they’re typically more unused space horizontally than vertically.

Cinnamon 3.2 also has a completely rewritten screensaver and, my personal favourite, the ability to run apps with optirun if Bumblebee is installed. That is, if you have dual graphics cards and Bumblebee installed you can set the default to the less powerful card, but then right-click an item in the menu and launch it with the more powerful card, for example GIMP, a video editor, or graphics-intensive game.

While Cinnamon is the flashier of Linux Mint’s two desktops, MATE is every bit as good in my experience and with Linux Mint 18.1 MATE has been updated to MATE 1.16. Most of what’s new in MATE 1.16 is under the hood, particularly the fact that MATE has nearly finished the transition to GTK+ 3 components, which goes a long way to improving some of the lingering little UI problems of previous releases.

The GTK+ 3 support also means third-party themes should be easier to build, though in the meantime it may break some of your old favourites so proceed with caution if you use a custom theme.

There are also a number of changes in this release that apply to both desktops, including updates to Linux Mint’s X-apps set of default applications that have been customised and integrated into both desktops. Xed, the default text editor – better known as “Text Editor” within Mint – gains a new search-as-you-type feature that now opens at the bottom of the windows and is comparable to the search features in Firefox. Xed also now supports dark themes, like the Mint Y theme.

Mint’s Update Manager has been updated as well with a new column that shows the origin of a package. Out of the box that means primarily Mint’s repos along with Ubuntu’s for things that pull directly from upstream. Any third-party repos you add will show up as such here as well.

The last release of Mint saw an addition to the Update Manager that lets you set a default update practice ranging from the very conservative to “update all the things” with a middle ground option being the default. While there’s nothing wrong with this in itself, Mint’s wording is a little loaded to say the least. The most conservative setting is called “don’t break my computer!”, which implies that the others will, which is completely untrue and does a disservice to those completely new to Linux, of which Mint likely has no shortage.

While “don’t break my computer!” is not the default setting, labelling it as such and combining it with the further encouragement “Recommended for novice users” almost guarantees that new users – those who would likely most benefit from an up-to-date and secure system – will opt for this setting.

Here’s the bottom line: out of the box Mint effectively blocks some updates to the system, which means Mint users may well be running software with known security vulnerabilities, which could theoretically be exploited. From a security purist standpoint Mint is a step down from Ubuntu.

Mint 18.1 Update Manager

The Update Manager lists packages’ provenance

Practically speaking, though, vulnerabilities in Xorg or the kernel are more difficult to exploit using a browser (the most common source of attacks) and Mint does a good job of keeping web browsers up to date even with the default settings.

At the end of the day I suggest you enable the “always update everything” setting, which, for the record, is roughly the same as what you’d get out of the box with Ubuntu. You’re still always able to chose what you’d like to update and when. While I understand Mint’s stance on regressions and the reasons why it doesn’t want to update everything out of the box (increased stability being the main reason) I hope that in the future Mint will at least consider changing the wording on its Update Manager splash screen to something more neutral than “don’t break my computer!”

So, big question: should you update to Mint 18.1? If you’re already on 18.0 then, by all means, the bug fixes alone are well worth the update. MATE users particularly will benefit from the additional GTK+ 3 support and Cinnamon’s vertical panel support is a welcome change. Remember, no matter which version you end up with, Linux Mint 18.1 is an LTS release and will be fully supported until 2021.

It’s worth noting that there are other desktops available for Linux Mint, including Xfce and KDE, but at the time of writing neither of them had been updated to Mint 18.1. Typically the Xfce version comes about a month after MATE and Cinnamon and then the KDE version after that. ®

Sponsored:
Customer Identity and Access Management

Bitcoin falls 10% as China plans to investigate exchanges

Chinese investors dominate the global bitcoin volume trade. For some time, Chinese regulators have been concerned about bitcoin and whether it is having a negative effect on the renminbi.

Last week, the People’s Bank of China met with three of the country’s largest bitcoin exchanges to talk about market regulations.

Charles Hayter, chief executive and founder of digital currency comparison website CryptoCompare, said today’s announcement was a “ratcheting of the rhetoric” from the Chinese authorities.

“Instead of ‘we’re watching’ you it’s now ‘we’re investigating’ you,” he told CNBC.

“The intentions of the Chinese state are clearer and it looks like they’re trying to bring the Chinese bitcoin exchanges to heel – whether they are looking to make an example is yet to be seen.”

Hayter added that the move may have positive impacts in the long term, as it may bring more respectability to the industry as it matures.

“But in the short term this could affect volumes which have been one of the key drivers of the recent rally.”

Bitcoin had been steadily rallying through 2016 and appreciated to more than $1,100 on January 5th, near to its record high, but the digital currency subsequently crashed, dropping back to the $900 level.

Follow CNBC International on Twitter and Facebook.

2016 New gTLD Year in Review (Infographic)

This post provides an overview of The 2016 New gTLD Year in Review infographic, reflecting on some of the intriguing highlights of the gTLD industry.

The data analyzed within the infographic is based on the following:

– New Top Level Domains (TLDs) contained in the data set reflect open TLDs and exclude single registrants such as brands

– For greater insight, TLDs have been separated into four quartiles or ‘tiers’ with tier 1 being the top 25% and tier 4 being the bottom 25%

– Initial registration upswings have been eliminated with TLDs in the data set to be in General Availability for at least 60 days

– Top ten based on projected yearly revenues based on daily registration volumes

– Registry revenues do not include premium name sales as dependable revenues are not available

– Operational losses are based on TLD revenues with a conservative $150k in expenses

– Revenues are based on the average retail price over four registrars (101Domain, eNom, GoDaddy and United Domains) in December 2016

– If significantly low registration pricing (less than $5) was employed on an extended or repetitive basis, the lowest price was used. This is a change from prior comparisons where the TLD was removed from the data set.

* * *

Top Level Domain Statistics and Business Implications 2016 Overview

  • The dataset analyzed contains 475 TLDs that were in general availability for at least 60 days (an increase of 63 over 2015)
  • Average number of registrations per day is 66
  • Top 25 TLDs account for 40% revenues and 12% of registration volumes (significant change from 2015 with half of revenues accounting for half of the registration volume)
  • Less than 4% of TLDs will exceed ICANN’s minimum yearly fee
  • Largest group of TLDs are in the $20 – $25 retail price range followed by the $25 – $30
  • Average revenue of all gTLDs is $252k
  • Average retail prices vary ($34.14 to $206.70) within each tier differ yet the median price variance is less significant ($28.49 to $33.74)
  • All tiers have a ‘very weak’ correlation between price and volume
  • Based on today’s data, 66% of TLDs are projected to operate at a loss for the next year based on conservative, yearly expenses of $150k; with over 400 TLDs belonging to portfolio companies, the percentage decreases

2016 Insights from gTLD Statistics and Business Implications by Quartile

Tier 1: Trailblazers – Leading TLDs with a consistent gap over the other three tiers based on higher prices and consistent volume

  • Average retail price of $207 (increase from $91 in 2015) and a median of $32.99 (decrease from $35 in 2015 but lower than tier 3 of $33.74)
  • 5 out of 10 of the highest average retail priced TLDs are in tier 1 (.auto, .car, .cars, .security, .protection)
  • 70% of TLDs in tier 1 in 2015 remain in tier 1 in 2016; However, 51% had a reduction in their retail price on average $12.47 with a median of $3.72 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 48 but with a mean volume decline of 15
  • Projected yearly volume remains relatively unchanged with a small decrease of 2.2% over 2015
  • 34% and 42% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 1
  • Average TLD length is up to 5.45 characters in length
  • Deeply discounted TLDs in tier 1 include .loan, .online, .site, .gdn, .bid, .tech
  • Tier 1 TLDs include: .vip, .shop, .mom, .bank, .design, .nyc, .games, .city, .lawyer
  • More precise pricing needs to be tracked to provide comparable yearly revenue projections and analysis

Tier 2: Path Finders – Finding their Way

  • Average retail price jumped from $51 in 2015 to $75 in 2016; However, the median price had a small increase moving from $29.99 to $30.49
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 2 in 2015 remain in tier 2 in 2016; However, 31% had a reduction in their retail price on average $1.82 with a median decrease of $8.09 resulting in an average registration volume decrease of 1 but with a median decrease of 8
  • 32% and 64% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 2
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.05 characters in length
  • Average volume in 2016 increased just over 4.1% to 8,728 from 8,387 in 2015
  • Tier 2 TLDs include:.gift, .racing, .video, .taxi, ,bar, .earth are in the second tier of gTLDs

Tier 3: Campers – Niche groups of TLDs

  • Average retail price in tier 3 is $101.27 and a median price of $33.74
  • 67% of TLDs in tier 3 in 2015 remain in tier 3 in 2016; However, 26% had an increase in their retail price on average $3.67 with a median reduction of $4.07 resulting in an average registration volume increase of 2 but with a median decrease of 3
  • 21% and 71% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 3
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.38 characters in length
  • Tier 3 TLDs include: .estate, .holiday, .codes, .cards, .soccer, .accountants, .toys

Tier 4: Hikers – Determining a pathway up!

  • Lowest pricing amongst all tiers with an average retail price of $34.14 (up from $31.62 in 2015) and a median price of $28.49 (down from $28.74 in 2015)
  • 80% of TLDs in tier 4 in 2015 remain in tier 4 in 2016; However, 29% had an increase in their retail price on average $4.92 with a median reduction of $2.35 resulting in an average and median registration volume decrease of 2
  • Projected volume has grown due to TLDs who have offered significant discounts but with total revenues remaining in tier 4
  • 20% and 75% of TLDs that went into General Availability in 2015 and 2014 respectively are in tier 4
  • Average TLD length is up to 6.29 characters in length
  • Tier 4 TLDs include: .joburg, .cologne, .florist, .actor, .supply, .gripe, .sarl

gTLD Business Implications for 2017

  • As the number of new TLD delegations tapers off, 2017 will be interesting as the industry shifts from launches to operations will play a bigger role. As such, TLDs rising to tier 1 at the end of the year will likely be diverse from prior years
  • Average registration volumes have increased to 23,900 an average increase of 5,650 over 2015
  • Number of TLDs offering deeply discounted registrations has also increased over 2015
  • Average retail prices have increased by $45 over 2015 with almost no change in the median price $-0.038
  • Top 5% of TLDs account for 40% of all projected revenues
  • In 77% of all cases, the singular TLDs ranks higher than the plural TLD i.e. .loan/.loans, .game/.games, .accountant/.accountants
  • Volume of IDNs in tier 1 have increased to 37% (up from 26% in 2015), tier 2 and tier 3 each have 15% (tier 2 down from 22% in 2015 and tier 3 up 11%). Tier 4 remains unchanged with 48%
  • Premium name revenues have not been taken into account which can have significant impacts on the financial performance of a TLD

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any questions, insight or items to consider for future analysis.

By Christa Taylor, Christa Taylor is the CEO of DotTBA. More blog posts from Christa Taylor can also be read here.

Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains

Why a MacOS user switched to Ubuntu Linux

Dshargreave: “Just about every Mac user I know is either considering switching back to Linux or has already. Thanks for the feedback on your experience.”

Just_comments: “I’m a Mac user that used to use Linux on my PC. I like Macs because I’m familiar with Bash a lot more than the windows command line, and the build quality of their laptops is (or was) top notch.

I also primarily am a web developer and having easy access to windows, OS X and Linux on the same machine is damn convenient for testing.

I’m considering switching back because of the poor support the Mac has been getting and the abysmal frequency of the hardware updates makes it feel like Apple really only cares about their mobile market and don’t really want to continue to support the platform I’m most interested in using.”

Bgdawes: “+1 for switching to linux from Mac. Did it about 3 months ago after Apple made two of my devices obsolete in one fell swoop with their new OS release. Started my linux journey with Ubuntu and moved on to Arch. I absolutely love everything about it and will never go back.”

Holgerschurig: “This is interesting, because over in /r/emacs (and the various emacs blogs) I get the impression that a majority of emacs users use it on mac laptops.”

Dkkc19: “I’m switching from Ubuntu to Mac OS.

But I will keep using my Ubuntu laptop as a 2nd computer. Might try to run a different distro once it becomes my secondary machine. Linux is too good not to use.”

FifteenthPen: “I can’t bloody stand what OS X has become. I switched to Linux back around when Mountain Lion came out because the GPU in my Mac Pro died, and my Mac Pro wasn’t compatible with any version of OS X after Lion, so spending $300+ to replace the GPU wasn’t worth it. I converted my gaming PC into a Linux machine and haven’t looked back since.

I use Macs at work from time to time, though, and they drive me crazy. OS X used to feel like a well-crafted system that keeps the sharp pointy bits out of the way so typical end users don’t get hurt by them, but they were still easy enough to get at if you knew where to look. Now OS X feels even more like it thinks it knows better than the end user than Windows! It’s also gotten progressively buggier with each release, and I’ve noticed that with the advent of the app store the free software ecosystem on OS X has mostly dried up outside of homebrew and such.

I can’t stand to use OS X, and for perspective, I used OS X from the time it came out to Lion, over a decade. I’ve used Linux far less than that, but I could never see myself going back.”

Soltesza: “I have heard many people who earlier defected from desktop Linux to OSX are now coming back.

The user experience on Linux desktops has improved radically in last years and most DEs retained high customizability. I use Cinnamon 3 and KDE Plasma 5.8 on my most used machines and I think they are both way more pleasant than OSX (also using El Capitain on a work-issued 2015 Air)

Meanwhile, OSX has seemingly not progressed at all as a desktop. If anything, it got dumber because its UX is now being moved closer to iOS (which is a bad idea for a desktop OS). The Dock now locks bland and uninspiring, still no flexible multi-monitor-multi-desktop settings for the global menu, adding new programs to the Application menu still requires complicated wrappers, Finder is still a joke as a file manager…etc)”

QuadraQ: “I’ve used all three and I’m really impressed with Linux. I still think MacOS Linux Windows, BUT Linux is getter closer and closer to being as good as or better than MacOS every day. And Apple has not been focused enough on Mac hardware lately (although I think a lot of that comes from a switch to ARM that’s in the works, but that’s another conversation).

2017 will be an interesting year for sure. I must admit that only Linux impressed me in 2016. I hate what MS is doing to Windows 10 and I’m seriously worried about MacOS.”

More at Reddit